Obama and the American Lefts: Part II
By Sam Copeland on January 14, 2009 at 10:15 AM in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Current Affairs, Hillary Clinton
[NQ Note: We are pleased to present Part 2 of the essay by a brilliant political strategist who blogs under the name “Sam Copeland.” Sam is an expert in political persuasion and worked at the highest level of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Read Part I, published last evening.]
In my last post, I described the split in the Democratic Party between leftists and centrist All-American Liberals. Obama appealed to the leftists to be selected as the Democratic nominee. Hillary ran an honest campaign as a centrist liberal. Now that Obama has won the Presidency, he is adopting her positions and putting Clinonistas into prominent positions. If you are a Clintonista optimist, the glass is half full (at least Clintonians are in the government), but if you are a pessimist, the glass is half empty (why not Hillary?). And as I noted before, the engineer looks at the half-full/half-empty glass and asks, “Why does this glass have wasted capacity? Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in charge?” To see the outline of the answer to that question, let’s return to the first term of Bill Clinton’s Presidency (if but only we could in real life).
Like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton came into the Presidency on a message of hope (the Man from Hope to be exact) and change. Unlike Obama, Bill Clinton was much more specific about the change he would bring – the centrist, All-American Liberal policies I described. When he implemented that change, he was met with opposition not only from the right but from the leftist-wing. For example, his tax cuts for lower income Americans and tax increases for the rich brought the scorn of the neo-cons. His changes to welfare were attacked by the leftists.
Both of these policies were economically sound (contributing to the Clinton economic miracle) and both were morally right. The rich should strive to match the patriotism of the poor and middle classes who send their sons and daughters to fight our wars. A life on welfare is not a psychologically healthy lifestyle.
The political environment of Bill Clinton and of Barack Obama is much different than the political environment of FDR and Truman. In those days, centrist All-American Liberalism reigned supreme. Neo-cons such as Joseph McCarthy and Douglas MacArthur and leftists such as Henry Wallace made lots of noise but were in decline. The second most popular political position was the moderate Republicanism of Dewey and Eisenhower (in many ways a “me-too” liberalism). All that has changed and political discourse is now dominated by neo-con and leftist rhetoric. The liberal’s natural ally, Moderate Republicanism, is a thing of the past. An All-American Liberal today is attacked by both the right and the left. Hillary Clinton was attacked by the likes of Ann Coulter and the adolescents at Daily Kos.
The answer to the engineer’s question: The reason for the wasted capacity is that anyone that champions All-American liberalism and the values of middle-class America will be attacked by the neo-con and leftist extremists that dominate today’s mass-mediated political discourse.
What will happen to Barack Obama if he adopts Clintonian policies? Quite simply: He should expect the same attacks that Bill and Hillary have gotten.
Currently, Obama has the support of the leftists although he is viewed skeptically by Clintonistas such as myself. How long will he keep this leftist support? Quite frankly, I am surprised that it hasn’t dawned on them already that the change we can believe in is the change in Obama’s policy positions. I thought the reappointment of Secretary of Defense Gates would do it. Needless to say, that was some pretty strong Kool-aid that Obama supporters swilled down during the primaries.
Nevertheless, leftist elites are starting to feel like they have been put out in the cold. Obama’s stimulus package is being attacked by those in Congress on the left (for the tax cuts) and those on the right (for the government spending programs). Sound familiar? As insightful and thorough as ever, LisaB has more details on leftists’ rumblings.
Ultimately, Obama’s political fate hinges on one issue: Can he revive the American economy enough in four years to earn re-election? To do that he needs the technical know-how to run the economy (and for this he is rightly turning to those who know Clinton economics) and the political skills both to keep the support of the American people and to maintain a ruling coalition in Congress.
Currently, Obama is receiving increasing support from the American people. This is typical after an election as citizens rally around their new leader. It should not be mistaken for support of Obama’s policies. He must earn that support.
In the primaries, Obama compared himself to Ronald Reagan who, in Obama’s eyes, created a new conservative movement. Obama, supposedly, was to create a similar political realignment for the left. The comparison falls short. Reagan won the 1980 election on the strength of his personality and on his political agenda, which he spelled out in detail in a series of radio broadcasts given in the late 1970s. Obama won the 2008 election on the strength of his personality and the failures of George W. Bush. He did not spell out his vision for America in the detail of Ronald Reagan, and thus there is no vision to rally a new liberal movement. He refuses to make a contrast between liberal and neo-con political philosophies (as Reagan did) and instead worships at the altar of a vague notion of bi-partisanism.
Without the vision-thing, Obama’s Presidency runs the risk of a rudderless ship much like the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. A vision and clear direction will allow Obama to suffer successfully the slings and arrows of attacks of the right and the left. It will buy him goodwill and understanding from the American people. Bill Clinton spelled out his vision for America, and it was one reason he remains a popular President.
The formula for maintaining a ruling coalition in Congress is simple: For every leftist Democrat Obama loses when he adopts a centrist liberal position, Obama must find someone on the right to replace that leftist. While straightforward, this is a daunting task because there are few if any moderate Republicans left in the world today. A move to the right is a pretty far jump.
With the current configuration of the Senate, Obama needs only one Republican vote to avoid a filibuster. One way Obama can get his policies through Congress is to pit one side against the other – leftist versus neo-con – and stake out the popular middle ground for himself. His pay-to-play skills as a Chicago Pol will come in handy when he needs to purchase those one or two Congressional votes to secure a win.
Will Obama be able to pull this political rabbit out of his hat? It remains to be seen, but I am reminded of what Bill Clinton said about George W. Bush just after showing him and Laura around the White House: “Underestimate Bush at your own peril.” Don’t underestimate the political skills of Barack Obama. He is a ruthless politician. The fact that our mainstream media don’t even perceive him to be a politician just makes my point.
In the current political environment, ruthlessness can be a good thing. Obama needs to be able to throw people under the bus if that is what is required to lead. But such ruthlessness has its cost. Unlike in the past where those discarded could be forgotten as Obama moved on, he is now at the top level and those he discards will have a tendency to hang around and quite possibly come back to haunt him.
Conclusion: Obama’s ability to navigate this political environment will determine not only the success of his Presidency and the prosperity of ours and others’ nations, but will also determine which left, if any, will rise to dominance on America’s political scene.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
IF you take all criminals OUT of the equation
we would have HILLARY as she won in the primaries
(caucus fraud was rampant and indictable so not legitimate)
this is not just my opinion
also I never thought I’d find myself defending Ann Coultergeist but she actually was decent towards Hillary and I believe she said she would VOTE for her over all the other DEMS and MOST of the other REPS. (shocked me)
bho the fraud is still bho the fraud. How sad–and dangerous–that our national moral fiber has eroded to the point of producing three illegal selections of an incompetent, arrogant puppet to sully OUR White House this century. The means do not justify the ends and we will answer for letting the oligarchy running this show put such a fraud in DC.
This is such great analysis. More please
Thank you for the analysis. I also agree, more please.
I think I am an engineer!
This dude has failure written all over him, not to mention scandal. Chalk up another one, tax woes and nanny payment troubles:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/14/geithner-confirmation-complicated-tax-woes/
Yes MORE, MORE, MORE!
Thank you, Sam.
I will be watching with a copy of both parts of your essay in hand. You laid out the terrain for us to watch how Obama navigates it.
Dear kossacks,
Today Larry Kudlow announced he and nine other conservative columnists had dinner with Obama last night at George Will’s house. Larry said Obama was charming and knew how to take both sides of an issue. All I can say is “no kidding.”
Hope you enjoyed trashing the party,
Love.
Annie
“Obama was charming and knew how to take both sides of an issue”.
There you have it in a nut shell. We are in a lot of trouble.
I don’t get it… whihc way do you want it?
The article laments the takeover of the “leftists” and describes how “All American Centrist Liberals” (”AACL”) were the ideal. It also stated that the AACL’s were natural allies with moderate republicans.
Now someone in the comments posts about comments from republicans praising Obama for being able to see both sides of an issue and suddenly that’s a bad thing? Now he should be more partisan?
You can’t really have it both ways.
Did you miss the ‘rudderless ship’ point from the article?
It’s great that Obama can straddle both sides of the fence. Anyone with a decent intellect can do the same. So really, it is what you do with that ability.
Frankly, he has only used the technique to “bamboozle” people, to quote Obama. Telling one state one thing and then contradicting himself the next day in another state during the election.
Going back to an aspect of Mr Copeland’s article. Obama doesn’t seem to have a vision of HIS OWN without stealing other people’s. That leaves for the possibility of a ship that goes nowhere.
In my opinion, this gives the profiteer schemes, like the Rezko projects, a place to flourish. The familiar Chicago/Obama ruse to be covered by the infrastructure stimulus spending, is not what will give Obama or our country a successful presidency.
Most on this board want better for our citizens than the Chicago Way.
~~
Quote from Mr Copeland’s article.
“He refuses to make a contrast between liberal and neo-con political philosophies (as Reagan did) and instead worships at the altar of a vague notion of bi-partisanism.
Without the vision-thing, Obama’s Presidency runs the risk of a rudderless ship much like the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. A vision and clear direction will allow Obama to suffer successfully the slings and arrows of attacks of the right and the left. It will buy him goodwill and understanding from the American people. Bill Clinton spelled out his vision for America, and it was one reason he remains a popular President.”
Brilliant.
(cuss word here) KIDS,ELITES & poor Blacks easily influenced
we watched it as it went down and it sure wasn’t pretty
still stings actually
welcome to doe doe-a-bambi-deer-in-the-headlights world
we should take bets as to WHO will be the first to voice their mental defect
I wouldn’t say “poor blacks”. Most blacks are middle class now. And 95% of all voting blacks supported Obama. So I think it’s more appropriate to just say “blacks”.
The thing to remember about Obama is that he is all about Obama–party loyalty isn’t there. Now, I’m all for individualism, and independence, and I have no party loyalty any more whatsoever; so Obama may surprise me and be independent enough to increase my respect.
It will all depend on whether or not his self-aggrandizement also manages to alter the political landscape in its wake. Obama will always do whatever is best for his own political ambitions, his own personal well-being. Yes, he’s ruthless in that respect. Anyone who hopes that he will stand on a “principle” they personally adhere to, will be disappointed. There is no principle with Obama, except Obama.
I agree.
Obama is a classic Narcissist personality. He wants ALL the attention so he will pander to whoever will give him attention.
He also has no core values — he is neither a liberal nor a conservative — but he wants and craves the support and attention of both groups.
He is also a passive aggressive — and he will punish in his passive aggressive way — anyone who gets in his way.
He has no real leadership skills — he can copy, rote like, leadership like behavior — but he has no real innate understanding of HOW to be a leader.
He is a shallow, vain person and won’t make the effort or take the time to understand the structure and character of the problems he will inherit. His idea of “leadership” is to appoint someone to fix the problem — if that person fails — then it is under the bus for that fool.
He is a twisted psychopath — and he is dangerous. Faced with a crisis — he won’t be able to make a reasoned decision based on experience — because he has NO real governing experience.
No one should have to work for a sexist pig like Obama.
Yes, yes, yes. In commenting on another thread yesterday I tried to post the first six characteristics that define a sociopath, but it didn’t make it through the spam filter. It was from the first Google result for “sociopath,” an article titled Profile of a Sociopath, and you could check them off one by one for 0bama. Creepy, and as Black Monday approaches, scarier and scarier.
Case in point:
Carol Marin has detected slavish sycophants among the Press corps with regard to Obama. Of course, if they are being shut out altogether by Obama; it stands to reason they will slavishly adhere to the OBAMA RULZ.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/01/12/sun-times-journalists-shut-out-obama
Senators Snow and Collins are moderate Republicans.
How ironic that these females may support BO’s policies, and carry his water!
Most expensive Inaugural in History:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html
Democrats complained about Bush’s $70 Million Inaugural in 2005. But, now it’s more like “let them eat cake.”
I am going to say this, and its going to sound incredibly racist, but they know they need tons of security because of the amount of poor white and black trash that is going to be there.
I live next to Atlanta, GA. When they hosted the NBA all star even, I unknowingly decide to go shopping that day. There was so much trash out that day, that they had to close all businesses down, due to theft. People were walking in Stores taking stuff off of the shelves and just walking out. They were going to eat in restuarants, and not paying the bills. There were numerous shooting, and fights. There was so many cars and traffic, that ambulances couldn’t get to the people that where shot and or injured in the fights there. I was complete chaos.
This is what Washington D.C. is going to look like on January 20th, but 100 times worse.
They are hoping to curtail this by bringing in tons of security and declaring a state of emergency, so that all businesses can close and dip into the pot to recover losses.
I don’t think its going to work, because you can’t control that much trash in one place. Especially Obama supporters, whom we all know are prone to emotional problems. Be prepared to see all kinds of issue. If I lived in Washington D.C., I would get the hell out that day. You really don’t want to be there.
One more thing. If they declare a state of emergency, they can implement Martial law. Now I don’t know about you, but can you imagine the riots, when the military tells these people to go home after the inauguration.
All hell is going to break loose.
The state of emergency already has been declared.
from the Mail Online link above.
You may have taken this into consideration, maybe not. I don’t have the time right now to research it, but what about the two seats in congress that are in dispute right now. That being the appointment by the governor and the race with Al Frankton (whatever his name is). With those two seats out of the picture in the short term. What kind of power play does that give those whom control congress?
I believe that is why they are delaying these two senators from having a say in congress. Would this give Democrats a non-filibuster proof congress to pass legislation?
I disagree with the premise that Obama can’t remain vague and thus this will lead to problems with his re-election. As we have seen with George Bush Jr., the capacity of Americans to learn when a president is non-effect or even detrimental, seems to take almost all the eight years in office. And even then, the majority seems to have no integrity, and take a reactionary position, shifting from one side to the other. I think Obama will gain re-election if he follows the strategies of George Bush and remains vague, refusing open press conferences, keeping all departmental investigations secret, and hand picking reporters that support him fully. Don’t underestimate the propaganda of the media. Make no mistake, the media is in total control or being controlled by these powers, whomever they are.
Furthermore, I don’t think Obama will stay central. I think once he gains office, he will slowly start to replace his cabinet, as he throws each one of them under the bus, ruining their political careers. He will start with Hillary Clinton first. He will overcome this as he always has. He will implement policies that are far-left but say something totally different in public (remember the closed press conferences).
I don’t think America is going to recover from the pendulum effect that has taken over politics. I believe the shift will bounce back and forth now. The laws of physics dictate it. Once something is set in motion, it tends to stay that way, unless acted upon from an outside force.
That force is going to be an economic and governmental break down. Once the economy goes bad, and there is no money left to be made in politics, only then will we get congressmen and women whom truly care about fixing the economy and our government. In their eyes, they still are rich, they want for nothing. It doesn’t matter how poor we are. Until the corruption starts to hit their pockets enough to not allow them to buy their way into power, we just have to sit along for the ride.
HaHaHa! You’re right of course. Sad but true. Give them what they want, which is an empty space into which they can project their own fantasies.
Good article! I find this business of the press-as-willing-lapdogs” really disturbing. I picked up an interview that Tavis Smiley gave a few days ago in which he said it was obligatory to those with the mikes and pens to ensure that Obama became a “great President.” Chris Matthews said something very similar after the election, something to the effect that is was “his” job to make sure the Obama administration was successful.
I knew the bias was there, but publically announcing it is absolutely stunning.
Guess we might as well get use to it: the only “news” we can expect from traditional/mainstream sources is “good news,” the sort that will promote and enhance Barack Obama’s position.
Should be an interesting 4 years, particularly as Obama moves increasingly to the center, the same spot the press and far-left criticized Hillary for.
But even they couldn’t throw a shadow on HRC’s Congressional appearance yesterday. Impressive!
How do you know Obama is central? Just because he picked cabinet members that are centrists, doesn’t necessarily mean he will implement policies that reflect that.
Remember the primary, where Obama would say one thing, but his voting record said something else.
Obama is the master of illusion. He is doing this central play right now, to cover for what he plans to do later. When the hype and attention on him wanes after the honeymoon period, that is when you should really expect to see Obama. Watch, this will be around the same time the news finds some controversial lawsuit or murder case to focus on 24/7.
I’m trying to be “hopeful,” Touchet.
And trust me, it takes a whole lot of effort. I agree, I think Obama is an illusionist. He’s bamboozled a large chunk of the American electorate.
For all our sake’s, I’ve gotta hope he’s better than I expect. Otherwise, we are royally screwed.
We’ll see. But it is like waiting for an incoming storm–you see it coming but you just don’t know how bad it’s going to be.
Yeah, sorry. I do tend to be a huge pessimist. You could be right. Didn’t mean to offend. Your opinion is just as good as mine.
*hold up wine glass* Here’s to the promise of better tomorrow.
Excellent and Informative Sam..
Spot On..Great read..and Conclusions..
No One should be Underestimated Anymore..The rules of the game have changed…We` are out of the Bushes and in to the BOTS..(Short for Boggy Bottoms)
Sam..You explained the Evolution of the Revolution very well..To Run One…you need POWER and the keys to the VAULT..
Whats next..?? Obama may belooking like a Centrist Now..but America is well exposed to CONS by Now..The way i see it..We in the Middle class are getting down to Our Last desperate Grasp on Survival..
But..I think when we become extinct..so will everyone else..
Brilliant set of articles. I referenced them on my blog, with links back to the original.
The dynamic of the party split is something the Democrats just have not come to grips with. While Obots dissed PUMAs for not getting on the train, they failed to realize that it wasn’t going anyplace we wanted to go. Just as they would never have boarded the HRC express.
It’s refreshing to see that split affirmed.
Great article. I am very interested in these ‘glass half full’ people, not from the angle of how they view Clinton’s role, but from the angle of how they view Obama. Politics does not follow absolute rules like engineering does. It tolerates fraud, cheating, and deception, and Obama has taken advantage of that fact like no other politician in history. Some of the things he has done are unforgivable, no matter how well he manages the economy (which, imho, will be a total disaster anyway based on his lack of experience, past disaster with the CAC, and enormous ego). Obviously from here on out it is perfectly acceptable to ignore rules and the faction that cheats the most will win out, therefore we will always have the most unscrupulous in power.
PUMA. We will not see the end of the Obamanation soon enough.
Glad I logged on today! I enjoyed your viewpoint Sam! I certainly agree here:
and here:
Ruthless ambition may have won him the job, but unless we have a solid recovery from this recession, all the charm in the world (ruthless and otherwise) won’t get his ass re-elected.
The loyalty of the electorate can be sorely tried (The Man from Hope knows this better than anyone), but when you’re broke and unemployed, fuhgettaboutit.
BO’s ruthlessness during the primary also produced blocs in the dem party of blacks and of women. I finally decided to vote for him, but now I wonder too what experience or judgment or whatever will help him through this financial crisis and into a 2nd term. November 2012 I’m allowing myself a wide array of options at the polls that I wasn’t ready for this cycle. If I vote at the top of the ticket and whom I vote for will depend on his success with this crisis, his treatment of women’s and older citizen’s issues, and his war policies.
Hillary was the right presidential choice for these times.
“Hillary was the right presidential choice for these times.”
I agree. And though I did not vote for Obama, my political attitudes were completely changed during this electoral season. I will never again vote strictly on Party lines, not locally or nationally. I will never again believe that the Dems have the highroad on issues or ethics.
So like you, arran, I will have a broader array of options. The sad thing is when you’re not thrilled with any choice.
But no more loyal, blind votes. I’m done with that!
Party Unity My Ass
That’s what it means.
And that’s exactly why I found the PUMAs and their message attractive, oowawa. They appeared to be the only rational people left standing in the Obama whirlwind.
Still do!
Its tough not to be cynical about this guy. Obama’s a cynic’s Best of West all time category of saying one thing and doing another. Cynical observations in 2000 that Bush II was just a fop and incapable of running of country proved correct. That the public at large has ever realized it, is a testament locked into a blindness breathtakingly pervasive.
Sooner or later the guy has to do something. He can’t just talk indefinitely. The realty on the ground will catchup with the rhetoric on the stump. At that time we’ll have a clearer measure of the man’s abilities. If the worst comes to pass, an army of sympathetic press and a governmental noise machine won’t to able to patch the egg man’s fall from the wall.
The sad thing is : If the Senate and the House of rep had up standing and Honorable men and women, they could stop him. However, corruption is running rampted.
Sam, another good read. I have a feeling that Obama will not be criticized for implementing Bill’s policies. I think people who were jealous of Bill Clinton pushed Obama into the WH. They want those policies in place, but they want to take credit for putting them there. The Republicans have messed up so much, they are now willing to admit that a lot Clinton’s policies were spot on.
For those (especially Obama supporters) who doubt his transformation, there is an especially interesting article at Foreign Policy entitled “The Obama Orphans.”
You can find it at:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/node/15095
Now, to be clear Foreign Policy was in the tank for Obama early on. So this report can’t be dismissed as just another Clintonista complaint.
The main point of the article: All those foreign policy experts who signed up with Obama to guide his campaign are now being left in the cold — that is, thrown under the bus.
FP is not liking what it is seeing. The Obama supporters not getting appointments are likely to be friends of FP. FP is waking up from the Kool-Aid and it will be interesting to see if they are able to maintain consciousness.
I’ll give you a few excerpts but you really should read it for yourself (the material from the Obama transition team at the end is pure spin).
Thank you so much, Sam Copeland, for your posts, and DO please continue your analysis in the days and months ahead. I believe there is a grateful audience here at NQ. I suspect many of us are trying to come to terms with where to go now since the Democratic Party decided not to be democratic and we are not comfortable with the party that positioned itself around Obama. Would you be willing to offer some suggestions as to how we can establish a meaningful resistance to the Obama National Party, because civil and nice people were no match for the dirty tactics of a ruthless politician? Where are the displaced Democrats to go? Any advice? I received an email today from Howard Dean, and for the moment I am speechless; do you suppose that Kaine would listen to the dissent of a lifetime “Clinton” Democrat?
Interesting article — a good read for inside info.
I just have no sympathy for these “experts” who turned their back on Hillary and now are concerned about having a place at the table.
They are back stabbers — and if they end up in the unemployment lines — good riddance to bad trash.
What these “professionals” did is nothing short of being traitors to America.
Your point that because Obama is not necessarily using all the people that helped him on foreign policy on the campaign trail is the same as throwing someone under the bus does not make sense to me. I guess you must have a different view of what it means to throw someone under the bus. To me throwing someone under the bus means that you are initially on their side and then you turn against them. Not using everyone in your administration does not at all mean that you are against them or that you have thrown them under the bus.
And why is this different than any other presidential campaign and ascension to the presidency?
By the way, by picking Hillary, I think he will let her have more of a say, so not going with all his original people makes some sense.
I am not sure what the critisim is here or the transformation??
Once again, what exactly is he transforming from and to? Not clear on your point??
Did you actually read the FP article?
The people who did the heavy lifting on foreign policy during his campaign were sent a form email and haven’t heard from anyone since. The two head of Obama’s foreign policy group (Rice and Lake) are not part of the group doing the hiring for Obama. Rice has a job (UN) but is not happy. Lake hasn’t been given a job. In contrast, Richard Holbrooke is in the administration as a special assistant for Clinton. (Holbrooke replaced Lake in the Clinton administration after Lake gave Bill what he considers to be the worst advice ever — not to act in Rwanda — and since then there has been tension between Lake and Holbrooke).
Personally, I am thrilled about this. I think Holbrooke is one of the greatest foreign policy experts alive today. But if I am Tony Lake, I am angry, especially since I did so much work for Obama at critical times.
But here is the big picture — Obama ran on a platform. For example, that he was going to talk without conditions to dictators. Some people voted for him because of this. I think this is crazy. Now, the foreign policy advisers who gave him this advice are no longer part of the top set of advisers. Instead, Obama puts in those advisers who will not talk to dictators without conditions.
So, what did we vote for? If talking with dictators without conditions is good, then why is Clinton Sec of State? If it is bad, why did Obama run on it?
This is one of my two fundamental problems with Obama — I never know what he stands for. This goes for the war in Iraq (7 different positions), healthcare (which he pitched as universal even though it is not), economics (dissed Clinton one minute and then adopted the next) and so on. All politicians do this, but never to this extent.
But hey, I am glad he isn’t doing what he said in Iraq and on foreign policy.
Now, the FP article makes clear a very real political danger for Obama. It is clear from the FP article that people who worked for him on foreign policy in the campaign are not happy campers. You don’t leak a story like this if you think you have a chance at a job because Obama’s staff will probably figure things out and that will be the end of their chances. These foreign policy folks tend to hang around DC in some capacity or another (like a job at GWU or in a think tank or something). They also probably know things that went on during the campaign that they can then leak to the press to damage Obama. If you are Obama, you don’t want this. It is a rookie mistake that he also made with Howard Dean. It will come back to haunt him.
And just so you know, the other major problem I have with Obama is he lacks experience; he just hasn’t accomplished anything other than being elected.
A few more comments on your post:
You seem to do less Obama bashing this time around, although it remains funny that you say that Obama is just following the Clintons or Clinton policy. Not quite sure I see that. I guess what you are inferring, given that you are a Hillary support, is that if he is just following Clinton policies and hiring Clinton people, then we should have Hillary Clinton as President instead. Not sure I agree, although I think Hillary would have made a great president.
“for this he is rightly turning to those who know Clinton economics” …what does this mean? What are Clinton economics? Working in partnership with the Gingrich congress and balancing the budget was a great Clinton move, but that was just normal smart economics, nothing that Clinton invented. Obama will have a tough time balancing the budget, given the deficits and economic downturn he faces. Not sure where exactly Obama is following anything that can specifically be called Clinton economics or that Clinton can specially take credit for inventing. Tax cuts are not specific to Clinton. I don’t think Clinton did a big government stimulus package. And if Obama invests in infrastructure, the environment, etc. ec. to help revive the economy that would be very new and not something Clinton ever did. That would be Obama economics.
I am not sure if is true to say that Obama did not spell out his policies or did not spell them out as much as Reagan supposively did. Obama had a whole website dedicated to pretty specifically spelling out policies and a new direction: a new direction on Iraq, a new direction on Afghanistan, a new direction on tax cuts for the rich, a new direction on energy policy, a new direction on the environment, etc. etc. I think Obama had a lot more detail in the direction he was going to take the country than Reagan ever had.
Obama has had plenty of vision on race (read his speech on race), on a new era of accountability, on bipartisanship, on Americas responsibility in the world (read the Berlin speech), he saw a much more activist role for government and a more responsible government, etc. etc. His speeches were full of vision. He probably got critized for having too much vision. His talk about hope for America and what America could be blew away anything Reagan ever said. Half the time Reagan just sounded like a buffoon. I think you are being a bit extreme with your rudderless ship comment and comparisons to Reagan. Obama has been anything but rudders, as he has taken the economy by the horns before he has even been sworn in. Nothing wrong with Obama’s comment about Reagan below. I think he has a good chance at doing what he says Reagan did below, although if he was not walking into such an economic mess he would have had a better chance at moving the country forward. You have to admire the guy for trying and even talking about this stuff. I never heard anything like this from McCain or Hillary. Do you even know what McCain’s and Hillary’s vision for American even was. At best both of Obama’s opponents were confused about their vision.
“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
“I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it has to do with the times. I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now were people think that things, the way they are going, just aren’t working.”
By the way what again was Bill Clinton’s vision of America and why was it any more clear or better than anything Obama has ever said about his view of America and where he wants to take the country?
“His pay-to-play skills as a Chicago Pol will come in handy when he needs to purchase those one or two Congressional votes to secure a win.” What a strange comment? What exactly do you base this view that Obama has as you say “pay-to-play skills as a Chicago Pol”? And if you mean that in order to get votes Obama will have to try and bring others onside through compromise or bargaining that what is wrong with that? That is what you do in politics. That is what every president has always had to do to get legislation and votes past. Nothing wrong with that! That is how our system works?
“The fact that our mainstream media don’t even perceive him to be a politician just makes my point.” What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Who exactly in the media does not recognized Obama as a politician? And where and when exactly has Obama shown himself to be a ruthless politician? This is certainly a guy that has been attacked on just about everything more than just about any other presidential candidate. He certainly could have attacked his politician opponents, whether they be Palin, McCain or Clinton, a hell of a lot harder than he did. For the most part he kept himself out of the gutter. Also, where are the examples of him throwing anyone under the bus? He certainly did not initially throw Rev. Wright under the bus, which would have been easy, until Wright continued to go on and on….
Not a very deep or insightful or as you say “visionary” conclusion to your two big posts. A very generic conclusion. All you are effectively saying is that Obama has to be a good politician in order to be successful and he will determine how left the country moves. No kidding!!! Wow! Did you some say you worked in the Clinton campaign and are an expert in political persuasion. Not a very persuasive or insightful piece.
Once again people fire away.
Lots of blather; lots of prefabricated, prepackaged pablum for consumption by the masses. You post as much as That One talks. God help us, you’re going to create a nation of narcoleptic nicompoops. This is better than an opiate for the masses–it is cheaper, and hopefully is only habit forming for you zerobots.
Give it a rest, beener, Francis, Debbie, Believe, or whatever the names are for your multiple personalities and two faces. We’ve seen this picture before–it was just painted by a bushbot last time.
LMAO–as if yours were.
No thanks.
His speech on race would get a C- if one of my university writing students turned it in as an assignment. It’s filled with faulty logic and rhetorical sleight of hand. It’s not vision, it’s television.
Great essay. Thanks Sam.
Thanks, Sam. Great analysis as usual.